It's been suggested since the introduction of Joe the Plumber: Barack Obama is a socialist who wants to "distribute the wealth." My gut reaction (which I realize says a lot about me and my political views) is "so what." Beyond whether or not I think there is anything wrong with socialism, I shouldn't have to waste my breath to say that Obama is not a socialist, and neither are any of his policies. Such a suggestion is simply patently absurd. Barack Obama doesn't believe that the government should absorb everybody's money and wily nily redistribute it arbitrary ways (the ignorant understanding of socialism). What Barack Obama believes in is some sense of economic equality through fair and effective means. He believes that we as Americans have not necessarily an obligation, but at least a collective interest, in caring for each other and not exacerbating social and economic disparities. It's not healthy for the economy and not good for the country if the economic divide continues as its current pace. Obama wants the government to take some responsibility for the wellbeing of its citizens. Is that not reasonable? We spend trillions of dollars on national defense and the military, but the moment that someone suggests that millions of dollars should be spent on health care, they are all of a sudden socialist? What message does it send to future generations when we suggest that caring for each other and a little bit of wealth equality is politically or morally wrong? If Obama's policies make him a socialist, then the entire United States is already socialist. Redistributive programs such as Social Security and Medicare are deeply engrained in our political system. Yes, you can say that they have their faults, but where would we be without a little bit of government intervention and support every once in a while. What do we call the bailout of Wall Street? Or is it ok if the redistribution of wealth is going to the big corporation, rather than the middle class?